Thread: South Africa: Apartheid Victims to Sue Multinationals

This is interesting:

Khulumani said its case targeted the multinationals "for having aided and abetted the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa under apartheid by equipping and financing the apartheid government's military and security agencies."

It said all the defendants had operations in apartheid South Africa, and it was seeking damages for "specific violations of internationally recognized human rights norms... by the apartheid government following the United Nations' classification of apartheid as a crime against humanity."

It named the defendants in the case as: Barclay National Bank Ltd., British Petroleum, PLC, Chevrontexaco Corporation, Chevrontexaco Global Energy, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Commerzbank, Credit Suisse Group, Daimlerchrysler AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, Exxonmobil Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Fujitsu, Ltd., General Motors Corporations, International Business Machines Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase, Shell Oil Company, UBS AG, AEG Daimler-Benz Industrie, Fluor Corporation, Rheinmetall Group AG, Rio Tinto Group and Total-Fina-Elf.

allAfrica.com: South Africa: Apartheid Victims to Sue Multinationals (Page 1 of 1)

Both the US and South Africa don't like the idea, and urged the Supreme court to rule against it. But....

Conflicts of interest on the U.S. Supreme Court prevented four of nine justices from ruling on an important apartheid case yesterday, forcing more than 30 major corporations to defend themselves against lawsuits accusing them of supporting South Africa's former racial policies.


Three of the judges hold shares in companies named in the lawsuits, and the son of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a banker for one of the companies.

As a result, the lower court's ruling stands.

The companies argued that the lower court expanded the U.S. Alien Tort Statute beyond its original meaning, which was to allow U.S. courts to hear cases by aliens involving violations of international law. They said the ruling set a dangerous precedent that would invite lawsuits against international corporations.

So what does anyone think about this subject? Should international corporations be held liable for their business with countries such as South Africa? What about North Korea or Iran? Where does business end and morality begin?

Conflicts derail key apartheid case*-*-*Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times

Corporates are fundamentally ammoral. They do not have feelings or emotions and therefore cannot act morally.

Only by changing the environment a business operates within can one change the actions of a corporate to mimic a moral response. So change the law... pursuing corporates for actions they have undertaken in the past under different laws if fruitless folly.

And what about the South African corporates - why do they get to be exempt?

Its a little dangerous asking corporates to decide morality, especially since they wield such extra-ordinary economic power and are not democratically elected by anyone. Would the US be forced into clearing its legislation with major corporates to ensure they view it as moral? What if the corporates decided it wasn't?